(December 24, 2019 at 9:58 am)Yukon_Jack Wrote: Still waiting on evidence that macro evolution was observed in a lab; or did I miss it

Yup, you missed it. Likely intentionally.

(December 24, 2019 at 9:58 am)Yukon_Jack Wrote:

(December 24, 2019 at 9:47 am)SUNGULA Wrote: So you can then distort and deny some more

What was the straw man Tour is accused of that you so esoterically stand by?

Oh, you missed that too.

Your factual ignorance is your problem. Not ours.

---

(December 24, 2019 at 1:27 pm)John 6IX Breezy Wrote:

(December 24, 2019 at 9:47 am)SUNGULA Wrote: So you can then distort and deny some more

My references are on the table. Look through them; if I've distorted them you're welcome to expose me. My offer to send the papers, if anyone can't access them, extends to you as well.

Nope. If someone makes false claims, and you simply regurgitate the same false claims claiming the original claimant as fact, you simply inherit the burden of proof for those claims.

(December 24, 2019 at 1:27 pm)John 6IX Breezy Wrote:

(December 24, 2019 at 9:47 am)SUNGULA Wrote: So you can then distort and deny some more

My references are on the table. Look through them; if I've distorted them you're welcome to expose me. My offer to send the papers, if anyone can't access them, extends to you as well.

I don't plan to go through 36 pages of this topic, but I do remember one post that I saw where you referenced some papers, like this:

(December 24, 2019 at 1:27 pm)John 6IX Breezy Wrote: In the absence of known ancestry, relatedness is always an assumption. Homoplasy (such as convergence or reversals) often breaks with this assumption because trait or genetic similarity is not a true indicator of relatedness. (Wake, et al., 2011). Phylogenies are indeed hypotheses (though I disagree they're testable); they attempt to predict various ways in which the relatedness assumption could have played out.

Reference: Wake, D. B., M. H. Wake, and C. D. Specht. 2011. Homoplasy: From detecting pattern to determining process and mechanism of evolution. Science 331: 1032–1035.

I don't have access to those papers but I do have an access to "Campbell Biology" which is a textbook for high school and college-level classes.

For instance you deny Phylogenie saying that it is just a hypotheses and you say it is not testable. You also seem to claim that relatedness is always an assumption without the absence of known ancestry, which you seem to say that one can't use nucleic acids to prove relatedness. And yet this is what "Campbell Biology" says

Campbell Biology Wrote:An organism’s evolutionary history is documented in its genome

As you have seen in this chapter, comparisons of nucleic acids or other molecules can be used to deduce relatedness. In some cases, such comparisons can reveal phylogenetic relationships that cannot be determined by nonmolecular methods such as comparative anatomy. For example, the analysis of molecular data helps us uncover evolutionary relationships between groups that have little common ground for morphological comparison, such as animals and fungi. And molecular methods allow us to reconstruct phylogenies among groups of present-day organisms for which the fossil record is poor or lacking entirely.

Different genes can evolve at different rates, even in the same evolutionary lineage. As a result, molecular trees can represent short or long periods of time, depending on which genes are used. For example, the DNA that codes for ribosomal RNA (rRNA) changes relatively slowly. Therefore, comparisons of DNA sequences in these genes are useful for investigating relationships between taxa that diverged hundreds of millions of years ago. Studies of rRNA sequences indicate, for instance, that fungi are more closely related to animals than to plants. In contrast, mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) evolves relatively rapidly and can be used to explore recent evolutionary events. One research team has traced the relationships among Native American groups through their mtDNA sequences. The molecular findings corroborate other evidence that the Pima of Arizona, the Maya of Mexico, and the Yanomami of Venezuela are closely related, probably descending from the first of three waves of immigrants that crossed the Bering Land Bridge from Asia to the Americas about 15,000 years ago.

Gene Duplications and Gene Families
What do molecular data reveal about the evolutionary history of genome change? Consider gene duplication, which plays a particularly important role in evolution because it increases the number of genes in the genome, providing more opportunities for further evolutionary changes. Molecular techniques now allow us to trace the phylogenies of gene duplications. These molecular phylogenies must account for repeated duplications that have resulted in gene families, groups of related genes within an organism’s genome (see Figure 21.11). Accounting for such duplications leads us to distinguish two types of homologous genes (Figure 26.18): orthologous genes and paralogous genes. In orthologous genes the homology is the result of a speciation event and hence occurs between genes found in different species (see Figure 26.18a). For example, the genes that code for cytochrome c (a protein that functions in electron transport chains) in humans and dogs are orthologous. In paralogous genes (from the Greek para, in parallel), the homology results from gene duplication; hence, multiple copies of these genes have diverged from one another within a species (see Figure 26.18b). In Concept 23.1, you encountered the example of olfactory receptor genes, which have undergone many gene duplications in vertebrates; humans have 380 functional copies of these paralogous genes, while mice have 1,200. Note that orthologous genes can only diverge after speciation has taken place, that is, after the genes are found in separate gene pools. For example, although the cytochrome c genes in humans and dogs serve the same function, the gene’s sequence in humans has diverged from that in dogs in the time since these species last shared a common ancestor. Paralogous genes, on the other hand, can diverge within a species because they are present in more than one copy in the genome. The paralogous genes that make up the olfactory receptor gene family in humans have diverged from each other during our long evolutionary history. They now specify proteins that confer sensitivity to a wide variety of molecules, ranging from food odors to sex pheromones.

So are you saying that writers of biology textbook know less genetic science that you do?

(December 24, 2019 at 3:26 pm)Fake Messiah Wrote:

(December 24, 2019 at 1:27 pm)John 6IX Breezy Wrote: My references are on the table. Look through them; if I've distorted them you're welcome to expose me. My offer to send the papers, if anyone can't access them, extends to you as well.

I don't plan to go through 36 pages of this topic, but I do remember one post that I saw where you referenced some papers, like this:

(December 24, 2019 at 1:27 pm)John 6IX Breezy Wrote: In the absence of known ancestry, relatedness is always an assumption. Homoplasy (such as convergence or reversals) often breaks with this assumption because trait or genetic similarity is not a true indicator of relatedness. (Wake, et al., 2011). Phylogenies are indeed hypotheses (though I disagree they're testable); they attempt to predict various ways in which the relatedness assumption could have played out.

Reference: Wake, D. B., M. H. Wake, and C. D. Specht. 2011. Homoplasy: From detecting pattern to determining process and mechanism of evolution. Science 331: 1032–1035.

I don't have access to those papers but I do have an access to "Cambell Biology" which is a textbook for high school and college-level classes.

Have the paper for free.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication...0/download

PDF format.

Guess what? It does not claim what John claims it says.

(December 24, 2019 at 1:27 pm)John 6IX Breezy Wrote:

(December 24, 2019 at 9:47 am)SUNGULA Wrote: So you can then distort and deny some more

My references are on the table. Look through them; if I've distorted them you're welcome to expose me. My offer to send the papers, if anyone can't access them, extends to you as well.

You expose yourself to those who understand the subject

---

Quote:What was the straw man Tour is accused of that you so esoterically stand by?

Are you a parrot or a  bot ?

(December 24, 2019 at 9:58 am)Yukon_Jack Wrote: Still waiting on evidence that macro evolution was observed in a lab; or did I miss it

---

Ah so you seem here to admit that evolution exists. But are trying to be able to believe in creationism by using macro evolution/micro evolution false distinction.
There is no micro/macro just evolution, what you call macro evolution is what you'd call micro evolution + time.

Wait.......so what you're saying downbeat is, seconds eventually turn into millennia? Surely you jest!

(December 24, 2019 at 4:00 pm)downbeatplumb Wrote:

(December 24, 2019 at 9:58 am)Yukon_Jack Wrote: Still waiting on evidence that macro evolution was observed in a lab; or did I miss it

---

Ah so you seem here to admit that evolution exists. But are trying to be able to believe in creationism by using macro evolution/micro evolution false distinction.
There is no micro/macro just evolution, what you call macro evolution is what you'd call micro evolution + time.

Ah. That is a question that the god-botherers avoid.

Exactly how many "micro-evolutionary" changes add up to a "macro-evolutionary" change?

(December 24, 2019 at 3:43 pm)Abaddon_ire Wrote: Guess what? It does not claim what John claims it says.

We can break down my statement and see how it is represented by the source:

"Homoplasy (such as convergence or reversals) often breaks with this assumption because trait or genetic similarity is not a true indicator of relatedness."

1. "Homoplasy (such as convergence or reversals)..." - This simple phrase alone motivated me to cite my source, because I used it almost as a direct quotation: "The various classes of homoplasy (convergence, parallelism, reversals) are not necessarily mutually exclusive and can be difficult to discriminate" (p. 1032).

2. "...often breaks with this assumption (of homology)..." - The author states that "Homoplasy is recognized by discordance with other characters in a phylogenetic analysis" (p. 1032). He invites the reader to see p. 1034, in which we get a quick glimpse of the process for detecting homoplasy: First, the relationships of taxa under study are selected; Secondly, traits of interest in the phylogram are mapped; Thirdly, the author determines whether each trait is present first and foremost in homology, if theres discordance in homology then convergence and parallelism are looked for, and lastly any possible reversals.

3. "...because trait or genetic similarity is not a true indicator of relatedness" - To understand this final point I'm making you really just have to read the whole article and understand the role of homoplasy in phylogenies. The issue can perhaps be put in condensed form in the following statement, "Although phylogenetic hypotheses are necessary, they are not always sufficient to resolve major questions involving parallelism and reversibility" (p. 1035).

Feel free to point out anything I've distorted.

Quote:Feel free to point out anything I've distorted.

In other words you misrepresented the source

Since this is only an atheist website, i am wondering what all the evolutionary biologists have said about Breezys groundbreaking findings.
These are groundbreaking, right?
And there is a consensus about them, right?
I mean, he has already been on evolutionary biologists forums to discuss these topics, right?
He surely is no pretender who comes to an atheist forum and starts name dropping, right?